IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v128y2021ics1389934121000770.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is hiking worth it? A contingent valuation case study of Multnomah Falls, Oregon

Author

Listed:
  • Lorber, Connor
  • Dittrich, Ruth
  • Jones, Sharon
  • Junge, Alex

Abstract

Multnomah Falls, a 620-ft-tall waterfall in the Columbia River Gorge, is the most visited natural site in Oregon. Its economic value is unclear, however, as the Falls are free to access. Due to a wildfire in 2017, the site was partially closed for over a year. Costly repair work was carried out along the single trail that allows visitors to hike to the top of the waterfall. In this study, we first determined the overall economic value of this iconic site. Secondly, we broke down the economic value by the different trail segments at Multnomah Falls. Using the contingent valuation method, we estimated willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the Falls (n = 1190) and counted visitors using infrared sensors along the trail and parking lot count data from June to September 2019 to obtain economic benefits across the population. We found that visitors who travelled to the top of the Falls experienced greater WTP than ones who only travelled to the bottom, with mean WTP ranging from $8.24 - $9.66 per trip. The total annual benefit provided by Multnomah Falls is estimated to be at least $11.23 m, which considerably exceeds the cost of repairing the trails after the fire (approximately $3 m).

Suggested Citation

  • Lorber, Connor & Dittrich, Ruth & Jones, Sharon & Junge, Alex, 2021. "Is hiking worth it? A contingent valuation case study of Multnomah Falls, Oregon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:128:y:2021:i:c:s1389934121000770
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934121000770
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102471?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Magnus Johannesson, 1993. "The Contingent-valuation Method," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(4), pages 311-312, December.
    2. Boxall, Peter C. & Englin, Jeffrey E., 2008. "Fire and Recreational Values in Fire-Prone Forests: Exploring an Intertemporal Amenity Function Using Pooled RP-SP Data," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(1), pages 1-15, April.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    4. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    5. Luis Santiago & John Loomis, 2009. "Recreation benefits of natural area characteristics at the El Yunque National Forest," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(4), pages 535-547.
    6. John B. Loomis, 1987. "Expanding Contingent Value Sample Estimates to Aggregate Benefit Estimates: Current Practices and Proposed Solutions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 63(4), pages 396-402.
    7. Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando & Englin, Jeffrey E., 2001. "Testing For Differential Effects Of Forest Fires On Hiking And Mountain Biking Demand And Benefits," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    9. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    10. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    11. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 287-306, May.
    12. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    13. Baerenklau, Kenneth A. & González-Cabán, Armando & Paez, Catrina & Chavez, Edgar, 2010. "Spatial allocation of forest recreation value," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 113-126, April.
    14. Magnus Johannesson, 1993. "The contingent valuation method—appraising the appraisers," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(4), pages 357-359, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shattuck, Clara & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Bowker, J.M. & Joshi, Omkar, 2022. "Differential values associated with outdoor recreational access among the wildlife management area permit holders," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ghosh, Ranjan & Goyal, Yugank & Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian, 2017. "Are small firms willing to pay for improved power supply? Evidence from a contingent valuation study in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 659-665.
    2. Henry-Osorio, Miguel & Mittelhammer, Ronald C., 2012. "An Information-Theoretic Approach to Modeling Binary Choices: Estimating Willingness to Pay for Recreation Site Attributes," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 123432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    4. José L Oviedo & Pablo Campos & Alejandro Caparrós, 2022. "Contingent valuation of landowner demand for forest amenities: application in Andalusia, Spain," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(3), pages 615-643.
    5. Kim, Ju-Hee & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2020. "South Koreans’ perspective on assisting the power supply to North Korea: Evidence from a contingent valuation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    6. Ghanem, Samar & Ferrini, Silvia & Di Maria, Corrado, 2023. "Air pollution and willingness to pay for health risk reductions in Egypt: A contingent valuation survey of Greater Cairo and Alexandria households," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    7. Sardana, Kavita, 2019. "Tourists' Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Traditional Agro-forest Ecosystems Providing Biodiversity: Evidence from India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 362-372.
    8. Ju-Hee Kim & Kyung-Ran Choi & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2020. "Public Perspective on Increasing the Numbers of an Endangered Species, Loggerhead Turtles in South Korea: A Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-14, May.
    9. Nina Boogen & Massimo Filippini & Adan L. Martinez-Cruz, 2022. "Value of co-benefits from energy saving ventilation systems—Contingent valuations on Swiss home owners," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 22/368, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    10. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2021. "Urban forests valuation and environmental disposition: The case of Puerto Rico," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    11. Kim, Ju-Hee & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2021. "Public preferences for introducing a power-to-heat system in South Korea," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    12. Cook, David & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Kristófersson, Daði Már, 2018. "Willingness to pay for the preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland – The contingent valuation studies of Eldvörp and Hverahlíð," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 116(PA), pages 97-108.
    13. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    14. Dhakal, Bhubaneswor & Yao, Richard T. & Turner, James A. & Barnard, Tim, 2012. "Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 34-44.
    15. Thapa, Samir & Morrison, Mark & Parton, Kevin A, 2021. "Willingness to pay for domestic biogas plants and distributing carbon revenues to influence their purchase: A case study in Nepal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    16. Leslie Richardson & John B. Loomis & Patricia A. Champ, 2013. "Valuing Morbidity from Wildfire Smoke Exposure: A Comparison of Revealed and Stated Preference Techniques," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(1), pages 76-100.
    17. Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.
    18. Sánchez, José J. & Baerenklau, Ken & González-Cabán, Armando, 2016. "Valuing hypothetical wildfire impacts with a Kuhn–Tucker model of recreation demand," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 63-70.
    19. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa & Susan M. Chilton & T. McCallion, 2001. "Parametric and Non‐Parametric Estimates of Willingness to Pay for Forest Recreation in Northern Ireland: A Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Study with Follow‐Ups," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 104-122, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:128:y:2021:i:c:s1389934121000770. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.